NO CONFLICT BETWEEN COMMON LAW “CONTINUING TRESPASS” & LIMITATION LAW

It has been argued that there is conflict between the common law principle and the provision of the limitation law. I respectfully disagree. One complements the other. They are not conflicting. It is not only in Nigeria that there are limitation laws. There is Limitation Act of 1980 which is a British Act of parliament applicable only to England and Wales. The British Act Limits actions in tort to 6 years. Section 2 of the Act reads: “Time limit for actions founded on tort: ‘An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”
In spite of the above provision, it does not apply to continuing trespass. It is therefore in my respectful view an error to argue that the provision of the various Limitation Laws in Nigeria do not allow for the doctrine of continuing trespass.’”

Per Awotoye, JCA. Chikere & Ors. v Chevron Nigeria Ltd. (2018) LPELR-44123 (CA).

Was this dictum helpful?

TRESPASS TO LAND IS ROOTED ON EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION

Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) at page 128 saying:- “Generally speaking, as a claim of trespass to land is rooted in exclusive possession, all a plaintiff need to prove is that he has exclusive possession, of the land in dispute. But once a defendant claims to be the owner of the land in dispute title to it is put in issue, and, in order to succeed, the plaintiff must show a better title than that of the defendant.”

Was this dictum helpful?

TRESPASS IS UNWARRANTED & UNJUSTIFIABLE ENTRY

Now, trespass is an unwarranted or unjustifiable entry or intrusion by one person upon land in possession of another. It does not depend on the intention of the trespasser. Nor can he plead ignorance as to true owner or that he thought the land belonged to him. It is enough that the right of the owner or person in exclusive possession was invaded. It is a settled principle of law that where a person who initially entered upon land lawfully or pursuant to an authority given by the true owner, or person in possession subsequently abuses his position or that authority, he becomes a trespasser ab initio, his conduct relating back so as to make his initial entry trespass.

– Katsina-Alu, JSC. Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

TRESPASS TO LAND REPRESENT PAYMENT FOR TORT OF TRESPASS, NOT VALUE OF LAND

When general damages are sought on the basis of trespass to land, they would represent payment for the tort of trespass, not the value of the land; and the land remains at least under the possessory ownership or right of the plaintiff claimant.

— Uwaifo, JSC. Rockonoh v. NTP (2001) – SC.71/1995

Was this dictum helpful?

ONE ALLEGING TRESPASS IS TO PROVE TRESPASS

Accordingly, where one in possession of land is said to be a trespasser, the onus is on the person asserting such an allegation to establish that he has a better title to the land than the person in possession. See Pius Amakor v. Benedict Obiefuna (1974) 3 S.C. 67. (1974) 1 All NLR 119 OR (1974) NMLR 331. It will now be necessary to ascertain whether the appellant was able to prove a better title to the land in dispute than the 1st respondent.

— Iguh, JSC. Kyari v Alkali (2001) – SC.224/1993

Was this dictum helpful?

CLAIM FOR TRESPASS COUPLED WITH INJUNCTION PUTS TITLE OF PARTIES IN ISSUE

It is an elementary principle of law that whenever a claim for trespass is coupled with a claim for an injunction, the title of the parties to the land in dispute is automatically put in issue. See Akintola v. Lasupo (1991) 3NWLR (Pt.180) 508 at 515; Abotche Kponuglov. Kodadja(1933)2W ACA24; Okorie v. Udom (1960) 5 FSC 162, (1960) SCNLR 326; The Registered Trustees of the Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (PU58) 514. The position is even much stronger where, as in the present action, the plaintiff claims a declaration that he is the person entitled, as against the defendant, to occupation and possession of the piece or parcel of land in dispute. The present action involves not only damages for trespass and perpetual injunction, but a declaration as to the plaintiff’s entitlement to the occupation and possession of the land in dispute. It cannot be doubted, in these circumstances, particularly having regard to the pleadings filed in the suit and the evidence of the parties, that the title of the parties to the land in dispute is what is primarily in issue in the case. This is simply because the law is well settled that when the issue is as to which of two claimants has a better right to the possession or occupation of a piece or parcel of land in dispute, the law will ascribe such possession and/or occupation to the person who proves a better title thereto. See Aromire v. Awoyemi (1972) 1 All NLR (PU) 10 at 12 Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.76) 263 etc. In the same vein, where two parties are on land claiming possession, the possession being disputed, trespass can only be at the suit of that party who can show that title of the land is in him. See Awoonor Renner v. Daboh (1935) 2 WACA 258 at 259 and 263 Umeobi v. Otukoya (1978) 4 SC 33.

— Iguh, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995

POSSESSION IS NECESSARY TO SUCCEED FOR ACTION OF TRESPASS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

NO CONFLICT BETWEEN COMMON LAW “CONTINUING TRESPASS” & LIMITATION LAW

Was this dictum helpful?

TRESPASS TO LAND IS ROOTED ON EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION

Was this dictum helpful?

TRESPASS IS UNWARRANTED & UNJUSTIFIABLE ENTRY

Was this dictum helpful?

TRESPASS TO LAND REPRESENT PAYMENT FOR TORT OF TRESPASS, NOT VALUE OF LAND

Was this dictum helpful?

ONE ALLEGING TRESPASS IS TO PROVE TRESPASS

Was this dictum helpful?

CLAIM FOR TRESPASS COUPLED WITH INJUNCTION PUTS TITLE OF PARTIES IN ISSUE

Was this dictum helpful?